9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had granted credence to the Modvat credit amounting to Rs.8,26,264/- while deciding the actual duty liability of the respondent. Held that- It is really painful to note that an amount to the extent of about Rs.6 lakhs and odd as duty besides interest and penalty for the period 1998-99 to 2001-02 was allowed to go down the drain either by sheer gross negligence and/or connivance on the part of the excise authorities with the concerned party. In such circumstances, we do not find any case having been made out by the Department for interference in the impugned order. – Revenue appeal dismissed. - E/6063/2004 - 631/2009-EX(PB), - Dated:- 1-9-2009 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President and Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) Shri Surinder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The facts in brief, relevant for the decision are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of trusses, purlins to support roofs made of M.S. Tubes/Pipes and had been clearing the same as pre-fabricated building falling under chapter sub-heading No. 9406.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Pursuant to the visit of the Officers of the Excise Department, a show cause notice dated 30-7-2003 came to be issued to the respondents requiring the respondents to show cause as to why the duty to the tune of Rs.13,91,486/- should not be demanded on the ground that the product which is being manufactured by the respondents is not the pre-fabricated building falling under chapter heading 9606.00 but is in the nature of M.S. Tubes/Pipes f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice, the learned DR submitted that the finding of the lower appellate authority regarding bar of limitation is not sustainable as records disclose that there was a clear case of mis-declaration under Rule 173B in respect of the product manufactured by the respondents and mere occasion to visits by the excise authorities to the factory of the respondents or receipt of invoices describing the product as "fabrication and supply of tubular trusses/structures" cannot be construed as complete knowledge about the actual nature of the product manufactured by the respondents so as to justify the finding about absence of suppression of facts by the respondents. Being so, according to the learned DR the lower appellate authority erred in setting asid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the respondents. Needless to say that the unit of the respondents was inspected and was subjected to audit by the concerned excise authorities. In the background of these facts, the lower appellate authority has arrived at a clear finding that- "It is further observed that the appellants after obtaining Central Excise Registration No. 3/Ch./94/R-I/MRT/92 had been manufacturing said goods right from beginning and clearing the same under sub-heading 9406.00 after payment of duty @ 8% adv. till 1999-2000, they had filed classification declaration under Rule 173-B for the said goods alongwith process of manufacture. I have seen photocopies of two of such classification list effective from 1-3-2000. 'The classification list effective from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
